Thread

1. Chance-Device · 1790848712 · focus · HN ↗

   I think the answer to this is simple: Mathematicians don’t own math. Math is a tool to do useful things. I don’t want this gatekept by people who have a sense of entitlement. And luckily enough, they don’t have any leverage, so the appropriate response is to say no.

   1. hodgehog11 · 1790858432 · focus · HN ↗

      Math is not merely a tool. The question isn't one of doing the math, it's about publication and release of work. Humans have to follow certain rules, so why should we allow AI labs to behave differently?

      1. Chance-Device · 1790859934 · focus · HN ↗

         Anyone can publish what they want. There’s nothing else to say about it, however anyone may try to pretend otherwise.

         1. hodgehog11 · 1790860462 · focus · HN ↗

            No you can't, have you published in top journals before? You can only publish what the community finds valuable, period.

            1. Chance-Device · 1790860982 · focus · HN ↗

               Actually yes, I have my name on a paper in a journal that you’d certainly consider to be top in its field. I’ve also worked in academic publishing.

               You have a very institutionalised idea of what publishing means.

               1. hodgehog11 · 1790864128 · focus · HN ↗

                  Care to explain? If a paper is not interesting, it would not get past reviewers. Unless "interesting" is not part of the criteria for entry to the journal? That sounds interesting if true, but that certainly has never been my experience.

                  I feel like I am going crazy, since this is taught in most academic writing courses. Being replicable or persuasive or correct is not enough. It needs to be perceived as valuable, or it will not get through. I learned that the hard way, and found others that taught this message only later.

            2. greiskul · 1790870788 · focus · HN ↗

               Publish whatever you want vs publish in a particular journal.

               You want to publish in a journal you follow their rules. You want to publish something? Go ahead.

               And results are not great results because they are published in top journals. Top journals are top journals because they attract the publication of great results. But the math always speaks for itself.

               1. 11101010010001 · 1790871830 · focus · HN ↗

                  Perhaps math speaks for itself, but this is certainly not the case in other fields.
               2. hodgehog11 · 1790897706 · focus · HN ↗

                  This is a fantasy I remember hearing in grad school. Get a little more senior and the whole perception shatters. You can put whatever rubbish you want out there. But if you are getting attention, or want attention, you have to play by the rules. Those rules are whatever the community dictates. Otherwise, why would Nick Polson be at risk of being discredited? It's no different from any other field, math is not special. Correctness is a necessity. It is not sufficient.
         2. pegasus · 1790870763 · focus · HN ↗

            Really? What about plagiarism? Have you looked into the Navier-Stokes proof? It gets very murky.

            1. erkt · 1790878969 · focus · HN ↗

               Is plagiarism actually illegal? This is primarily an ethical, academic or professional violation.

               1. pegasus · 1790895049 · focus · HN ↗

                  Were we discussing legality?
            2. stevenhuang · 1790966812 · focus · HN ↗

               It's not that murky anymore. It's been determined none of the chat contents were used. If you don't believe OpenAI, that's your choice.

               See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;openai.com&#x2F;index&#x2F;navier-stokes-solution&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;openai.com&#x2F;index&#x2F;navier-stokes-solution&#x2F;

               &gt; Following an investigation, we have confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training. The OpenAI internal model used for this result was developed through large-scale reinforcement learning on top of a previously pretrained model. Our proofs also differ significantly. In the Euler case, Alpöge and Buckmaster proved a result with external forcing, while OpenAI’s system proved a result without external forcing.

               1. pegasus · 1790971688 · focus · HN ↗

                  &gt; If you don&#x27;t believe OpenAI, that&#x27;s your choice.

                  ...and, I would add, it would be an informed choice, wouldn&#x27;t you agree?

                  1. stevenhuang · 1790977149 · focus · HN ↗

                     You don&#x27;t believe OpenAI given their assessment, so it seems you&#x27;re not operating on evidence in the first place

                     1. pegasus · 1791031060 · focus · HN ↗

                        So you just take OpenAI at their word, no questions asked? You imagine them to be unbiased in this matter?

                        1. stevenhuang · 1791039519 · focus · HN ↗

                           At this point it takes some weird epistemics to think they&#x27;d need to outright fabricate the outcome of an investigation when countless other mathematical breakthroughs have been solved the same.

                           They are certainly biased, but I don&#x27;t think such bias is strong enough to cause them to lie about facts. We may agree to disagree here.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.